It seems to me that there are two types of countries/citizens out there. The kind that appease the enemy to try and avoid retribution (Spain), AND...the kind that refuses to tuck tail and run, but stands up for their rights at all costs! Check it out...

Sunday, August 21, 2005

One of America's biggest liberals gets a HUGE wake-up call when she realizes that liberalism = refusing to acknowledge country's past, refusing to honor its sacrifices, and ignoring reality in an attempt to further an agenda.

"This isn't the San Francisco that I've known and loved and grew up in and was born in," - California Senator Dianne Feinstein.

The USS Iowa joined in battles from World War II to Korea to the Persian Gulf. It carried President Franklin Roosevelt home from the Teheran conference of allied leaders, and four decades later, suffered one of the nation's most deadly military accidents.

Veterans groups and history buffs had hoped that tourists in San Francisco could walk the same teak decks where sailors dodged Japanese machine-gun fire and fired 16-inch guns that helped win battles across the South Pacific.

Instead, it appears that the retired battleship is headed about 80 miles inland, to Stockton, a gritty agricultural port town on the San Joaquin River and home of California's annual asparagus festival.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a former San Francisco mayor, helped secure $3 million to tow the Iowa from Rhode Island to the Bay Area in 2001 in hopes of making touristy Fisherman's Wharf its new home.

But city supervisors voted 8-3 last month to oppose taking in the ship, citing local opposition to the Iraq war and the military's stance on gays, among other things.

"If I was going to commit any kind of money in recognition of war, then it should be toward peace, given what our war is in Iraq right now," Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said.

Feinstein called it a "very petty decision."

"This isn't the San Francisco that I've known and loved and grew up in and was born in," Feinstein said.

San Francisco's maritime museum already has one military vessel _ the USS Pampanito, an attack submarine that sank six Japanese ships during World War II and has about 110,000 visitors a year.

Officials in Stockton couldn't be happier. They've offered a dock on the river, a 90,000-square-foot waterfront building and a parking area, and hope to attract at least 125,000 annual visitors.

After the Korean war, the Iowa was decommissioned and placed in reserve in a Philadelphia shipyard for three decades. In 1988, it was recalled to duty escorting oil supply ships safely in and out danger in the Persian Gulf. In 1989, 47 sailors were killed in an explosion that tore through a gun turret during a training exercise.

The warship, decommissioned by the Navy in 1990, is currently anchored with a mothballed fleet in Suisun Bay, near the mouth of the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta.

San Francisco's rejection of such a storied battleship is a slap in the nation's face, said Douglass Wilhoit, head of Stockton's Chamber of Commerce.

"We're lucky our men and women have sacrificed their lives ... to protect our freedom," Wilhoit said. "Wherever you stand on the war in Iraq ... you shouldn't make a decision based on philosophy."

Rep. Richard W. Pombo, R-Calif., has sponsored legislation authorizing the ship's permanent move to Stockton. Feinstein has countered with a bill to open bidding to any California city.

The two versions will have to be reconciled by a House-Senate conference committee considering the Pentagon spending bill.

Friday, August 12, 2005

With its ban from postseason tournaments of American Indian nicknames and mascots deemed “hostile or abusive,” the NCAA has ruled that there is an important difference between the Fighting Illini and the Fighting Irish.

It’s one thing to be sensitive to the culture of Native Americans. But who speaks for the leprechauns?

And who will stand up for the College of William and Mary, America’s second-oldest university, which has been cited by the NCAA because of its nickname, the Tribe, and a logo that includes a pair of feathers?

William and Mary has been allowed an extension to investigate its problem with the NCAA. This shouldn’t be so difficult to fix once the school informs the powers that be that the concept of “tribe” is not exclusive to Indians.

Webster’s New World College Dictionary lists seven definitions for “tribe” without including the words Indian or Native American or referring to any racial or religious group.

Through biology, family and tradition, we all belong to one sort of tribe or another. Which brings us to those bothersome feathers. Again, easily resolved. Just turn the feathers into quill pens, to reflect the school’s important role in Colonial history. If that’s too retro, a pair of diplomas sticking out from the interlocking WM would help remind everyone that this is one university where the athletic tail does not wag the scholarly dog.

William and Mary, which thought it had resolved this debate by dropping its “Indians” nickname in the late 1980s, is finding the world to be an ever-more sensitive place. Nobody would accuse it or the 18 schools immediately affected by the NCAA’s ban of being callous and hostile toward Native Americans. Fans who support these nicknames aren’t racist, just a little oblivious. As we all can be.

More abusive to the Native American culture than team nicknames are mascots who wear war paint, headdresses and feathers and perform mock dances and chants. Especially if the ersatz Indian is, say, a Presbyterian from Newark, N.J.

But this is not a red or white issue. The Seminoles of Florida strongly support Florida State’s use of their name and image, whereas representatives of the Seminoles of the Southwest are offended that Florida State football crowds are fired up by a spear-wielding Indian on horseback.

Seven schools on the NCAA’s banned list are known as the Indians, three go by Braves. The Choctaws of Mississippi College are represented, as are the Fighting Sioux of North Dakota.

As hostile college monikers go, only one — the Savages of Southeastern Oklahoma State University — is in the same league with the NFL Redskins, which is a racial slur.

The NCAA means well, though you can’t help but think that there are other things more important than nicknames that could be banned from college events, such as functionally illiterate athletes and campus thugs.

Because these nicknames and mascots arrived long before political correctness, most of us rarely think about their possible impact on some people. The Fighting Illini doesn’t jolt our sensibilities the way a team named the Fighting Hispanics or Fighting Italians would.

But what about the Fighting Irish, who do not appear on any banned list? The NCAA claims to be cracking down on “hostile and abusive racial/ethnic/national origin mascots, nicknames or imagery.” Yet Notre Dame’s teams are represented by a ridiculous little man in a green suit carrying a big stick.

Apparently, the leprechaun lobby has yet to be heard from.

The following is a letter that was pointed out to me from the President of the University of North Dakota:

North Dakota Fighting Sioux - Letter to NCAA = WOW!!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------An Open Letter from UND President Charles Kupchella to the NCAA

8/12/2005

August 12, 2005

An Open Letter to the NCAA:

The quiet serenity of our beautiful campus was disturbed early August 5 by news reports that the NCAA had decided to address the Indian nickname issue. The early reports were unclear; the words mascot, nickname, and logo were used interchangeably, and the loaded words “abusive” and “hostile” were invoked without definition and without any real clear idea as to how they were being applied. We don’t have a mascot, and our logo was designed by a very well-respected American Indian artist. We couldn’t imagine that these reports would apply to us.

Later, we saw the full release. While it looked like the action taken by the NCAA was insulting, and a flagrant abuse of power, we knew that good, well-meaning people were involved in the decision and we wanted to consider our reaction carefully.

We were initially stunned by the charge “abusive” and “hostile,” and then angry. We reflected and gave it a week before drafting this response. I must admit to sinking at one point during the past week to the notion that my Association was guilty of “political correctness run amok” as suggested by some papers.

We want to file an appeal, but first we need to know the basis for your decisions. We need the answers to some questions first, in other words.

I do not wish to take up the issue, here, of any absolute or general “correctness” of using American Indian imagery. Those on both sides of the issue have long ago made up their minds, and no amount of talking over many years seems to have moved anyone from one side of the issue to the other. Suffice it to say, some choose to be insulted by the use of these terms; others are befuddled by this reaction to what they consider to be an honor. What I would like to take up here is a matter of the appropriateness and legality of the NCAA’s action. I mean to take up the issue of whether the NCAA has gone over the edge and out of bounds in the action announced on Friday.

Is it the use of Indian names, images, and/or mascots to which you are opposed? If it is all of the above, which logos, images, and mascots do you indict by your announcement? Is it only certain ones? As I said, a very respected Indian artist designed and created a logo for the University. The logo is not unlike those found on United States coins and North Dakota highway patrol cars and highway signs. So we can’t imagine that the use of this image is “abusive” or “hostile” in any sense of these words.

Is it the use of the names of tribes that you find hostile and abusive?

Not long ago I took a trip to make a proposal to establish an epidemiological program to support American Indian health throughout the Upper Great Plains. On this trip I left a state called North Dakota. (Dakota is one of the names the indigenous people of this region actually call themselves.) I flew over South Dakota, crossing the Sioux River several times, and finally landed in Sioux City, Iowa, just south of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The airplane in which I traveled that day was called a Cheyenne.

I think you should find my confusion here understandable, since obviously if we were to call our teams “The Dakotans,” we would actually be in more direct violation of what apparently you are trying to establish as a rule, even though this is the name of our state. This situation, of course, is not unlike that faced by our sister institution in Illinois.

Is it only when some well-meaning people object to the use of the names of tribes? If so, what standard did you use to decide where the line from acceptable to “hostile” and “abusive” is crossed? We note that you exempted a school with a certain percentage of American Indian students. We have more than 400 American Indian students here. Who decided that a certain percentage was okay, but our percentage was not? Where is the line between okay and hostile/abusive?

We have two Sioux tribes based here in North Dakota. One has, in fact, objected to our use of the name, “Sioux,” applied to our sports teams. The other said it was okay, provided that we took steps to ensure that some good comes of it, in educating people and students about the cultural heritage of this region. This mix of opinions is apparently not unlike that faced by our sister institution in Florida.

Is it only about applying names to sports teams? If so, would this be extended to the use of the names of all people, or is it just American Indians? Why would you exempt the “Fighting Irish” from your consideration, for example? Or “Vikings,” which are really fighting Scandinavians, or “Warriors,” which I suppose could be described as fighting anybodies? Wouldn’t it be “discrimination on account of race” to have a policy that applies to Indians but not to Scandinavians or the Irish, or anybody else for that matter? This seems especially profound in light of a letter to me from President Brand (8/9/05) in which he, in very broad-brush fashion and inconsistent with the NCAA’s recent much narrower pronouncement, said, “we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at our events.” (my emphasis)

As to the flagrant abuse of power question, I want to make sure I have this straight. We’ve recently built some magnificent facilities costing well over $100 million, under rules permitting us to host championship tournaments and otherwise participate fully in NCAA sanctioned activities, in which the very architecture of the building incorporates names and images of American Indian people. Do you really expect us now to spend large amounts of money to erase what we consider to be respectful images and names of Indian people who inhabited this region in the interest of the NCAA Executive Committee?

Hostile and abusive??

Help me understand why you think “hostile and abusive” applies to us. We have more than 25 separate programs in support of American Indian students here receiving high-end university educations. Included among these is an “Indians Into Medicine” program, now 30+ years running, that has generated 20 percent of all American Indian doctors in the United States. We have a similar program in Nursing, one in Clinical Psychology, and we are about to launch an “Indians into Aviation” program in conjunction with our world-class Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences. I am very proud when I visit reservations in our state to see that a large number of the teachers, doctors, Tribal College presidents, and other leaders are graduates of the University of North Dakota.

Do you really expect us to host a tournament in which these names and images are covered in some way that would imply that we are ashamed of them?

Concerning tournaments already scheduled: Is the NCAA taking the position that it can actually unilaterally modify a contract already made? Perhaps the charge (sometimes heard) that the NCAA exhibits too much of the arrogance that comes from its status as a monopoly – apart from the question of whether it’s an effective organization – does indeed have a basis.

If the NCAA has all this power, why not use it to restore intercollegiate athletics to the ideal of sportsmanship by decoupling intercollegiate athletics from its corruption by big budgets? Why not use the power to put a halt to the out-of-control financial arms race that threatens to corrupt even higher education itself?

Yes, I know that in theory the NCAA is actually an association, and that UND is a member of it, and therefore it’s really we who are doing all of these things to ourselves, or failing to do all of these things ourselves. But is the NCAA really a democratic organization? Why did we not put these issues to a vote by all member schools??

In his USA Today essay, Myles Brand proclaimed that this is a teachable moment, suggesting that the NCAA decision is “aimed at initiating a discussion on a national basis about how American Indians have been characterized . . . .” Great idea! Let’s have the discussion – one that we should have had before this ruling was handed down, one that actually includes American Indians and puts this in the perspective of all that is important to them at this time in history. And while we are at it, why not also address the state of intercollegiate athletics – whether or not student-athletes at some schools are being exploited, and whether or not there is an out-of-control financial “arms race” threatening the integrity of higher education itself.

In considering how to appeal, we find it exasperating that we can’t tell what the basis for your initial decision was and how you singled us out in the first place. In a letter from Myles Brand to me (8/9/05) he suggests that we could, in an appeal, argue that our symbols or mascots do not create a hostile or abusive environment. But his letter also seems to suggest that as long as some think the environment is hostile, case closed.

By the way, the last time this issue was stirred up on our campus, a formal charge was made to the Office for Civil Rights that the use of our logo or nickname created a hostile environment here at the University. The Office for Civil Rights sent a half-dozen people to our campus. They fanned out across campus and after more than a week here, found no such thing. Did the Executive Committee find some things they missed, perhaps? Or does a committee in Indianapolis trump the Office for Civil Rights here, on the ground, in North Dakota?

Finally, I expect that we will file an appeal, because should we wish to take this issue to court, the courts would undoubtedly ask if we have exhausted all administrative remedies. Please send us the appropriate application forms, and give us an indication of how the appeal will be heard and when. If the timing of this appeal were such that your deadline occurs before the appeal is resolved, we would ask that the deadline be put off, otherwise we may well have to go to the expense of seeking an injunction halting the imposition of these policies until all of our questions can be answered satisfactorily.

We thank you in advance for considering our questions.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Kupchella

President

CEK/cw

NOTE:

Charles Kupchella is President of the University of North Dakota (UND). The University offers some 25 program in support of American Indian students, has a degree program in Indian Studies and has, and has had, dozens of cooperative programs on reservations throughout North Dakota. UND serves more than 400 American Indian students on its Grand Forks campus. The University has competed in seven NCAA National Championship games since 1999 in both Division I and Division II.

The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan's anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the president's Crawford, Texas ranch.

The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey's aunt and godmother:

Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish.

Thanks, Cherie

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Three years after Iran's 18-year nuclear program cover-up was exposed, and following its decision this week to resume sensitive uranium work in violation of an agreement negotiated with European nations last November, the U.N. nuclear watchdog Thursday issued a statement voicing "serious concern."

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors' resolution made no reference to the possibility of action against Iran such as referral to the U.N. Security Council.

Instead, it spoke of "the importance of rectifying the situation" and "the possibility of further discussions" following Iran's resumption of uranium conversion - a step that precedes enrichment - at a plant in Isfahan.

It said "outstanding issues relating to Iran's nuclear program have yet to be resolved, and that the agency is not yet in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran."

The 35-nation IAEA board called on Iran to suspend the uranium conversion work. It will meet again in early September to consider a report from agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei on implementation of the resolution.

The U.S. has tried for two years to have Iran referred to the Security Council - which could impose sanctions - but found insufficient support. European Union nations have instead sought to extract an agreement from Iran to give up its nuclear cycle activities voluntarily in return for incentives. Washington has backed the E.U. initiative.

China said publicly this week that Security Council referral would not be helpful, and "non-aligned" nations also issued a statement expressing opposition to such a move.

Despite the relatively mild rebuke, Tehran rejected the IAEA statement, reiterating its position that it has the right to enrich uranium and carry out other nuclear fuel production cycle activities.

The U.S. government and many proliferation experts believe the civilian nuclear energy program can provide Iran with the know-how and material to produce nuclear weapons. Iran denies it has plans to build atom bombs.

President Bush called the resolution "a positive first step."

The State Department has stressed that the U.S. hopes to give Iran the opportunity to "do the right thing."

"If Iran doesn't take the steps described in the resolution, we would expect that the next step would be referral to the Security Council," spokesman Adam Ereli said Thursday.

An animated video produced for a Planned Parenthood chapter in California, advocating sexual activity by teenagers and violence against conservatives who oppose abortion, was removed from the organization's website Tuesday, but the reaction to the video itself is still pouring in.

Jim Sedlak, executive director of American Life League's STOPP International, told Cybercast News Service that what the animation "really shows is that if you don't agree with Planned Parenthood, then they want to eliminate you violently."

Planned Parenthood Golden Gate (PPGG), based in San Francisco, produced the video entitled, "A Superhero for CHOICE" and posted the video on its main website. The video was noticed by a conservative blogger on Friday, Aug. 5. It features a female superhero called Dianisis, presumably named after the president and CEO of PPGG, Dian J. Harrison. Dianisis travels the world fighting for 'choice.'

"It starts out with an abstinence educator who is simply trying to tell kids that if they want to avoid STDs and other problems, that they should abstain from sexual activity. Planned Parenthood's response is to drown him in a garbage can," Sedlak said.

"Then you have pro-life protestors outside a Planned Parenthood and in the video, [Planned Parenthood] even admit[s] that these people are not violent, they are doing everything legal, but she just wishes they would go away, so she shoots them with a condom gun and blows them up," Sedlak added.

The next scene takes place in Washington, D.C., where a white, Southern-accented senator is creating "I-can-do-whatever-I-want-to-do stew" by boiling papers that say "Civil Rights," "Bill of Rights," "First Amendment," and "Constitution." The senator explains that he comes "from a long line of grandiose narcissists, where quite simply the laws of these United States do not apply."

After the senator puts a document marked "Roe v. Wade" into the pot, Dianisis tosses him in the stew.

As Sedlak explained, "They have the politician in Washington D.C. who doesn't agree with them so they boil him in water and he comes out on a platter like a stuffed pig with an apple in his mouth and then starts espousing Planned Parenthood philosophy."

The senator exclaims, "I feel cleansed! I no longer have the stench of misinformed conservatism! I want all women everywhere to have the ability to choose what they do with their bodies."

Dianisis is pleased. "That's more like it, and besides, money spent now for the funding of family planning will save billions of dollars in future social expenditures."

At the end of the video, Dianisis heads off, saying, "I have an appointment with the Reverend Jerry Falwell - that shm***," using the Yiddish vulgarity to refer to the evangelical leader.

During the ending credits, a pro-life protestor gets his head chopped off with a condom.

"This video is absolutely outrageous," said Douglas R. Scott, president of Life Decisions International in a press release. "Pro-life men and women are depicted as evil and stupid. It sends a message to teenagers that it is acceptable to eliminate those who disagree. It is also riddled with misinformation about birth control, abortion, and sexual activity."

Sedlak agreed, "The real message of Planned Parenthood here is that, 'If you don't agree with us, then you deserve to either be killed or forcibly made to change your mind.

"We think the video really shows the total frustration of Planned Parenthood," he continued. "Planned Parenthood itself has been losing support around the country. They've closed down a clinic a month for the last 10 years, having closed 120 clinics since 1995."

Sedlak called for taxpayers to cut off Planned Parenthood funds. "People should understand that we give Planned Parenthood $265 million a year in taxpayer money. That particular affiliate in San Francisco, PPGG, gets over $9 million a year in government money -- just that one affiliate and this is what they're spending the money on; on films promoting violence."

The video disappeared from the PPGG website sometime Tuesday afternoon with no explanation. Calls made to Planned Parenthood were not returned as of publication.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.

He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and theDemocratically-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, (with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.)

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. (Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!)

Then, after all of the lying, thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

(CNSNews.com) - A report by a voting rights group regarding allegations of voter fraud, intimidation and suppression during the 2004 presidential election has found that "paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election."

The report by the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund found that thousands "were disenfranchised by illegal votes cast and a coordinated effort by members of certain 'nonpartisan' organizations to rig the election system through voter registration fraud in more than a dozen states."

For example, the report noted, paid Democrat operatives were charged with slashing tires on Republican get-out-the-vote vans in Milwaukee, and an Ohio court order stopped Democrat operatives from calling voters and telling them the incorrect date for election and polling place information.

The report also found that a law enforcement task force found "clear evidence of fraud in the Nov. 2 election in Milwaukee" that included hundreds of felons, voters that voted twice, and even thousands more ballots that were cast than actual voters recorded as having voted in the city.

The task force also found multiple indictments and convictions of ACORN workers for voter registration fraud in several states.

These cities were identified based on the report's findings and the cities' documented history of fraud and intimidation.

The group sent a letter to Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean and Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman urging them to formally adopt zero-tolerance policies against fraud and intimidation.

The group also asked both leaders to identify issues of concern in each election fraud "hot spot" by October 1.

"Until political parties and candidates are willing to adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards election fraud, the American public will have little confidence in other reforms," Brian Lunde, ACVR Legislative Fund board member, said in a statement. "There is no room for politics when it comes to the right to vote."

"It should be easy to vote but tough to cheat," said Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, ACVR Legislative Fund Counsel in a statement.

ACV suggested states adopt their "common-sense recommendations," which include requiring photo IDs at the polls, accurate statewide voter registration databases and a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to vote fraud and intimidation.